High-Risk Drinking in College: What We Know and What We Need To Learn

Issues For College Administrators

College presidents nationwide view excessive drinking as their number one campus-life problem.
They know that student alcohol misuse harms those students who drink to excess, negatively affects
students who do not drink or drink responsibly, and damages the larger institution. Although more
research is needed, findings from a number of well-designed studies offer information and
suggested strategies useful for college and university administrators interested in reducing
excessive drinking on campus and its consequences (Murphy, 2000).

Issues Related to Federal, State, and Local Laws

Federal, State, and local laws help define college administrators’ responsibilities for taking
action when students misuse alcohol. The Federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act and its
1989 amendments require institutions receiving any Federal funds to (DeJong and Langenbahn, 1995):

Implement an alcohol and drug education program;

Define a policy that prohibits the unlawful possession, use, and distribution of alcohol and
other drugs;

Share information about alcohol and drug treatment programs available to students and
employees;

Adopt disciplinary sanctions for students and employees who violate the school’s policy on
alcohol and drugs; and

Ensure that the disciplinary sanctions are consistently enforced.

The amendments to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act now permit schools to disclose to
parents any violations of local, State, and Federal laws and school policies and rules related to
alcohol. Massachusetts now requires and Virginia now recommends that public institutions in those
States do so.

Issues Related to Policy Development

In addition to complying with the law, each college has an obligation to define and adopt an
institutional policy on alcohol that is consistent with its own culture, values, mission, and
population. Because institutions are so diverse, no single policy on alcohol is appropriate for
the 3,000-plus U.S. institutions of higher learning (Gulland, 1994). An institution’s history,
demographics, philosophy, and mission should guide the policy development process.

Numerous publications are available to help administrators review and create alcohol policies (DeJong
and Langenbahn, 1995; Gulland, 1994; Pittayathikhun et al., 1997). Among the many issues to be
considered are the following:

Is the desired outcome a complete ban on the presence of all alcohol among undergraduate
students, or is the focus on responsible behavior and mitigation of serious offenses?

Will the focus be restricted to alcohol-misusing students only, or will it include those
adversely affected by students who drink excessively?

What data will be gathered and how will the data be gathered?

How will the institution measure compliance with the policy and evaluate progress in achieving
goals?

A school must also be aware of the legal aspects of any policy it institutes. To balance
students’ individual rights against institutional liability, some lawyers recommend the following
(Gulland, 1994):

Adopt only rules and sanctions that the school is willing and able to enforce.

Emphasize education, both as a general means of informing students about the dangers of
alcohol and drug use, and as a response to violations of the school’s policy.

Focus on circumstances that present the greatest danger and risk of liability—such
as situations in which the school is involved in selling alcoholic beverages or acting as a social
host—and recurring patterns of alcohol misuse during
particular events or by repeat offenders.

Address known violations of institutional policies immediately and impose discipline
consistently and firmly.

Issues Related to Policy Enforcement

Once an institution has defined and adopted its alcohol policy, it should consider policy
enforcement and the execution of educational and other programs related to it. Depending on an
institution’s policy, administrators may need to focus on specific aspects of campus life; some of
these are discussed below.

Residence hall life.There are many complex issues regarding residence hall life that
should be considered by administrators instituting and enforcing an alcohol policy. They include
the following:

At what point is a student’s right of privacy violated because of concerns about alcohol
misuse?

Does a college face legal liability if it designates a residence hall substance-free when
virtually all of the institution’s students are under the legal age for drinking?

What message does the “substance-free” label on one residence hall send about the others? The
label may be less “loaded” if it includes tobacco products as well as alcohol and drugs.

If no residence hall is designated substance-free, how is the institution prepared to respond
to the residential requirements of students who are in recovery from alcohol dependence and whose
needs are protected by the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act?

What is the college’s policy on a “good Samaritan” rule? In a reversal of the actions of the
biblical “good Samaritan,” some students refuse to seek help for a student in trouble as a result
of alcohol misuse for fear of punishment. A campus good Samaritan rule balances these student
concerns against the law and the need to obtain help for other students when they are in serious,
even life-threatening situations.

Fraternities and sororities.Because of the association between membership in a fraternity
or sorority and alcohol consumption, it is clear that college administrators need to work with
leaders in the Greek system when defining alcohol policy and the mechanisms for enforcing it. A
balance needs to be struck between respect for the fundamental principles of self-governance that
define Greek life and the recognition that fraternities and sororities are part of the larger
university environment and campus culture. College administrators should work with local chapter
members to ensure that Greek alcohol use and misuse policies are consistent with those of the
particular institution.

Currently, national fraternity and sorority systems set their own policies on alcohol misuse.
Recently, many fraternities have banned the presence of alcohol in the fraternity house (Boston,
1998; Budoff, 1998; Burke, 1999; Williams, 1996), and seven members of the National Panhellenic
Conference have voted to restrict their sororities’ social commitments in fraternity houses to
those chapters that offer only alcohol-free events in their houses.

An analysis of the role of alcohol in fraternities prompted the following recommendations to
members of the Greek system and campus administrators (Arnold and Kuh, 1992):

Conduct cultural audits of local chapters using insiders and outsiders.

Adopt culture-change strategies and tactics.

Hold members of the local chapter responsible for bringing about cultural change.

Defer rush until the end of freshman year or the beginning of sophomore year so college
students experience a broad exposure to campus culture before they choose to become members of the
Greek system.

Increase efforts to recruit members from historically underrepresented racial and ethnic
groups, groups that tend to drink less.

Eliminate organizations with harmful cultural and lifestyle patterns that are unwilling or
unable to change.

The role of athletics. College athletics can contribute to alcohol problems for the campus
and the surrounding community in a number of ways (Ryan, 1999). Weekly alcohol consumption and
binge drinking go up as a student progresses from noninvolvement in collegiate or recreational
athletics to participation on a team and a leadership position. At many institutions, alcohol is
intimately associated with athletics. The alcohol industry may provide financial support for
big-time athletic programs and related large-scale campus events; alcohol may be available in
college sports arenas; and new college stadiums may include luxury boxes for alumni and other
supporters where alcohol is served.

The following recommendations emerged from a 1999 symposium on collegiate athletics and alcohol
sponsored by The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (Ryan, 1999):

The National Collegiate Athletic Association should reassess its policies for accepting
alcohol advertising and event sponsorship.

Colleges should enforce consistent alcohol control measures for public events (e.g., pregame
tailgating and in-stadium alcohol availability) to avoid double standards for alumni and students.

Colleges should reduce risks posed by postgame celebration (for wins) and consolation (for
losses) occasions by hosting social gatherings that do not involve alcohol.

Colleges should examine the pros and cons of accepting financial support from the alcohol
industry.

Alumni events and fundraising. Alumni events represent a particularly challenging area for
college administrators. While virtually all alumni are of legal age to drink, the extent to which
they misuse alcohol when they return to campus can have serious consequences for the college or
university. Students are quick to note double standards and hypocrisy and readily pick up on the
fact that excessive drinking by alumni is tolerated while alcohol misuse by students is not. When
the president of the University of Rhode Island changed the institution’s policy to ban alcohol
from all campus functions, some of the most vocal resistance (besides fraternities) came from the
development office staffers and deans, who were worried that the lack of alcohol could adversely
impact fundraising and development activities (Schroeder, 1999). In fact, the president reported
little or no resistance from alumni and no negative impact on development (Mara, 2000).
Nevertheless, the extent to which there could be negative effects on development from changes in
alcohol policies is an issue meriting further study.

Another difficult question is whether to accept gifts or sponsorships from the alcohol industry
(Ryan, 1999). President Edward H. Hammond of Fort Hays State University is among those who believe
the alcohol industry should be part of the solution, not part of the problem. He said, “Every time
a legal product is abused in our society, we demand the producers of the product take ownership
and be a part of the solution” (Ryan, 1999). He cited the automobile industry and chemical
companies as examples.

For institutions that have hospitality programs or food-related curricula, or alumni who have
entered the alcohol industry after graduation, the two issues—alumni
giving and industry support—come together. The college or
university must be clear in articulating its position, especially about alcohol advertising on
campus, accepting gifts, and allowing support from the industry. It is possible to prohibit the
direct advertisement of alcohol or official sponsorship of an event by the alcohol industry and
still accept gifts from manufacturers or retailers of beer, wine, and liquor products.

Research indicates that the most successful strategies for changing student drinking behavior are
likely to be multidimensional (Final Report of the Panel on Prevention and Treatment). Such
strategies should take into account existing laws, an institution’s own alcohol policy, and the
people likely to be affected by enforcement of that policy. Although additional research is needed
to answer important questions about many aspects of excessive student drinking, a number of
colleges and universities are using a combination of strategies to begin changing the culture of
drinking on campus. Those strategies include involving stakeholders, offering a range of
substance-free social programs, conducting communications campaigns, managing special events, and
building campus-community coalitions. College administrators may find elements of each useful in
planning their campus alcohol programs.

Involving stakeholders. Most effective programs involve stakeholders—a group that at a
minimum includes students, the school president, and faculty—as a first step in developing a
campuswide approach to reducing excessive student drinking.

Students. The key stakeholder in changing a college culture of alcohol misuse is the
student. Students have the opportunity—and perhaps the obligation—to be advisers and advocates in
bringing about healthy cultural change. The most successful change is likely to occur when it is
student-driven and supported by the administration. Students can hold themselves accountable for
the campus alcohol policy; monitor their own behavior in a way that exercises self-governance and
accepts responsibility; communicate information on the topic through campus newspapers; and
initiate social programming that does not include alcohol, especially in the critical and
influential first month of school (Gomberg, 1999; Gulland, 1994; Upcraft, 2000).

College presidents. The college president is another important stakeholder in reducing
campus alcohol misuse. The role of the chief executive has been delineated by the Presidents
Leadership Group (1997), which encourages presidents to adhere to the “three Vs”: be vocal, be
visible, and be visionary. The group offers the following specific recommendations for college
presidents (DeJong, 1998; Presidents Leadership Group, 1997):

Work to ensure that school officials routinely collect data on the extent of
alcohol misuse and make this information available when appropriate.

Frame discussions about alcohol in a context so that other senior
administrators, faculty, students, alumni, and trustees will understand clearly that excessive
drinking interferes with the pursuit of academic excellence that drives the institution.

Define alcohol not as a problem of the campus alone, but of the entire
community, one that will require community-level action to solve.

Use every opportunity to speak out and write about alcohol and other drug
misuse to reinforce prevention as a priority concern and to push for constructive change.

Work to ensure that all elements of the college community avoid providing
“mixed messages” that might inadvertently encourage alcohol and other drug use.

Demonstrate commitment to alcohol and other drug abuse prevention by
budgeting sufficient resources to address the problem.

Appoint a campuswide task force that includes other senior administrators,
faculty, and students; has community representation; and reports directly to the president.

Appoint other senior administrators, faculty, and students to participate in
a campus-community coalition that is mandated to address alcohol and other drug use issues in
the community as a whole.

Lead a broad exploration of the institution’s infrastructure and the basic
premises of its educational program to see how they affect alcohol and other drug use.

Offer new initiatives to help students become better integrated into the
intellectual life of the school, change student norms away from alcohol and other drug use, and
make it easier to identify students in trouble with alcohol and substance use.

Take the lead in identifying ways to promote economic development in the
community, since a community with a broad economic base will be less reliant on selling alcohol
to college students to produce revenue.

Be involved, as private citizens, in policy change at the State and local
level, working for new laws and regulations that will affect the community as a whole.

Participate in State, regional, and national associations to build support
for appropriate changes in public policy.

Faculty. A survey conducted by the Core Institute showed that more than 90 percent of
faculty and staff are concerned about the impact of students’ alcohol and other drug use (cited in
DeJong, 1998). Faculty can play a vital role in effecting change by:

Ensuring that classes are held Monday through Friday, not Monday through
Thursday; when the academic week is short, it can encourage the early start of a long weekend
devoted to partying.

Infusing the curricula with information on alcohol misuse, when appropriate,
to engage students in this issue (Ryan and DeJong, 1998).

Ensuring adequate staffing. A coalition of staff is needed to effectively reduce alcohol
misuse on campus. Coalition members need to be able to link with health professionals, campus
police, judicial staff, and students to connect students with alcohol problems to appropriate
interventions. Coalition leadership should have direct access to the college president. If
institutional change is to occur, it cannot be led by a staff person buried deep in the
organizational bureaucracy of the college or university.

Offering social programming. The type and amount of social programming play a significant
role in students’ use and misuse of alcohol. One of the most controversial issues is whether to
have a campus pub. Although an on-campus pub offers opportunities for oversight, it may also be a
liability because the college is acting as a host in the provision of alcoholic beverages (Gulland,
1994). The college should be sure it offers student-friendly social activities throughout the week
that do not involve alcohol; many college students appear to be seeking a high-energy, social and
recreational program that follows their biological clock, not that of the overseeing staff. The
University of West Virginia and the University of North Carolina are among the institutions that
have been successful in offering all-night activities that meet students’ desires. Key to the
success of this type of nonalcohol social programming is the role that students themselves play in
taking the lead by planning and sponsoring such events (Schroeder, 1999).

Conducting communication campaigns. Colleges and universities are engaging in
communication campaigns to reduce excessive drinking. Some institutions focus on the consequences
of alcohol misuse to the users themselves, while others try to motivate change by empowering those
affected by secondhand effects. Although traditional efforts offer information about alcohol use,
including the devastating and dangerous effects of alcohol misuse (death, serious injury, rape),
newer campaigns feature the social norms approach, which emphasizes the more moderate behavior
that is typical of the student population at large, rather than worst-case examples. (More
detailed descriptions of informational and social norms approaches are provided in the Panel 2
report.) A communication campaign can be based not just on individual intervention strategies but
also on strategies at the social system level, which includes institutional, community, and public
policy levels. At the core of the social systems approach is the belief that people make decisions
about alcohol use based on the physical, social, economic, and legal environment, not just on
personal needs (DeJong, 1998).

Managing special events. Highly populated special events such as football tailgating,
homecoming, special weekends, and senior celebrations are often marked by excessive drinking. The
“just say no” approach—simply mandating that such events cannot occur—does not work and can have
disastrous results (Cohen, 1997; Zimmerman, 1999). A more helpful approach is to involve students
in planning these events from the beginning, sharing with them the need to prevent harmful
consequences that can occur from alcohol misuse. Although these honest, open discussions can make
admissions officers, public relations personnel, and college legal staff nervous, without an
honest assessment of the damage that can result from such gatherings and a genuine commitment to
change, nothing constructive will happen and entrenched behavioral patterns will continue.

Building coalitions. Building campus-community coalitions involves a need to be honest and
open. To form an effective coalition, college officials need to talk honestly about unmonitored
serving in the local bars where identification is not required, the impact of advertising
low-priced drink specials, and the overall campus drinking problem. Such honesty can expose the
college to potential litigation or “bad press,” but without such candor, the attention of
community leaders and their help and cooperation are almost impossible to obtain. Such coalitions
can be powerful forces for change. In one experiment, two communities in California and one in
South Carolina organized citizen-led programs for more effective control of alcohol sales. In
contrast to the comparison sites, participating communities cut alcohol sales to minors in half
and reduced single-vehicle accidents by 10 percent (DeJong, 1997; Holder et al., 2000). Although
the risk of public exposure of problem student-drinking behavior exists, taking a stand and
reaching out to work with the community can have a highly positive outcome (Schroeder, 1999).

Strategies for Filling Gaps in Knowledge: Alcohol-Reduction Efforts

College administrators need to develop, use, and continually evaluate research related to their
own campus and community. This will enhance knowledge about the effectiveness of program
interventions and the differential vulnerability of specific populations on campus. In addition,
it is important to monitor the image of the college that is being presented through its materials,
student academic performance, and campus incidents related to alcohol use and misuse. The college
should also attempt to determine the various costs related to alcohol misuse by students on
campus. Although very little research is available in this area, some guidance may be available
from recent national studies (Levy et al., 1999; Wechsler et al., 2000c). Focus group research can
augment understanding of trends identified in surveys of campus populations. Ongoing program
evaluations within the institution are crucial to assess the success and impact of any
interventions that are developed and initiated by college administrators to reduce alcohol misuse
on campus. To design a program once and assume it will continue to be useful, effective, and
relevant for years to come is unrealistic.